Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

[john m.]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

No I think you just need a coat of wax to make that dome shine

[Kevin Brown]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

No I think you just need a coat of wax to make that dome shine

We could call it "Dome Glome".

Actually, I could use a dulling agent.
I prefer a matte sheen on tires versus glossy, so I would opt for the Dome Glome Satin versus the Dome Glome High Gloss... with dander control!

[Andrew C.]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

Very interesting akimel.

The way I view it is who cares how you use your tools. Call it abuse, call it whatever you want. You bought it, you do with it as you please, there is no law that says it has to be used for this or that. You use it for what you need to get done, however you want to get it done.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

If using a tool for a purpose other than what it was designed for produces an acceptable result, without causing damage to either the tool or that which the tool is used on, there where is the "abuse"? A D/A sander used to polish paint does an outstanding job, as, apparently, does a fork when used on Ariel's hair. Abuse of the tool? No. A new use for the tool? Perhaps.

If using a tool for a purpose other than what it was designed for fails to produce an acceptable result, without causing damage to either the tool or that which the tool is used on, then again, where is the abuse? In this scenario, it depends. A spoon would not do an acceptable job on Ariel's hair, but such use would not damage the spoon, nor Ariel's hair. Again, no abuse.

If using a tool for a purpose other than what it was designed for fails to produce an acceptable result, and in the process damage occurs to either the tool or the work surface, then abuse is found. A typical red shop towel, when used to polish paint, would not do an acceptable job yet it would not damage the tool so there is no abuse of the tool. But since this tool would most likely inflict a wide range of swirls, scratches and other defects to the paint, one could say this misuse does constitute abuse - but not of the tool, only of the surface/material the tool was used on. Otherwise, a towel is perfectly happy and content to be rubbed over a surface.

Use a D/A buffer on Ariel's hair, however, and one would quickly assume abuse of the surface/material the tool is used on. There is also a high probability that Ariel's hair will become ensnarled in the workings of the tool, thereby constituting abuse of the tool as well. Similarly, using the fork to polish paint will likely scratch the paint, and with sufficient pressure may well bend the tines of the fork. Again, abuse on both sides.

So the "unintended" use of a tool can produce no abuse, abuse of the just the tool, abuse of just the work surface, or abuse of both. As with so many things in life, then, the short answer to the question is "it depends".

[CieraSL]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

Similarly, using the fork to polish paint will likely scratch the paint, and with sufficient pressure may well bend the tines of the fork.

Ouch! That hurts just thinking about it!

[CieraSL]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

If using a tool for a purpose other than what it was designed for fails to produce an acceptable result, and in the process damage occurs to either the tool or the work surface, then abuse is found.

So, I guess that means when Wile E Coyote uses a stick of dynamite as a candle, he is abusing both the stick of dynamite and himself?

[Tim Lingor]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

Oops! I just used the wife's hair dryer to remove some dealer stickers on a vehicle! I hope I did not abuse it (vehicle or hair dryer)!

As for Kevin's chrome dome, just think how much you save in shampoo!

Tim

[TH0001]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

Okay this is going to be long and border on banter and rambling because I am making no formal effort to organize my thoughts. To be honest, even if I attempted to organize my thoughts it wouldn't work, so why waste the time? So let me apologize first...


Kevin Brown did not name the method that bears his name, and after knowing him ( by phone) I can 100% guarantee that he would never do something of the nature. It is unfortunate that this is one of the most common misconceptions regarding Kevin. He has (not even to me) proclaimed that he was some great detailer or has even go so far to say that his methods are the best. He will simply tell you why things work and how he thinks they may be improved.


To clarify the story behind the name Kevin Brown Method, it was the result of an informal conversation between Bryan Burnworth (gmblack3a on some of the detailing forums) and myself. Bryan was polishing a particular BMW with difficult paint. Every product he polished with on the soft paint would cause some difficulties. One of Kevin and my first discussions centered around how some paint's would 'swell' or expand when heat or solvents where applied to them. I suggested that Bryan try polishing the car with a Porter Cable (to avoid heating the paint) and briefly recounted some of the procedures that Kevin had told me about how he felt the performance of the machine (Porter Cable) could be optimized.


Bryan called several hours later, blown away by the results he could achieve. He was able to replace both compounding the paint (with wool pad/ 3M extra cut) to remove the deep defects and the follow up polishing in one step. Up into this point I would never have considered the Porter Cable a viable tool for heavy defect removal, perhaps it was my previous ignorance; but it seem that this thought was a common conception.


Using the new polishing liquids (M105/M86) in combination with the techniques that Kevin taught me (neither I nor Kevin would ever say he invented them, however) transformed the Porter Cable (IMO) into a viable paint correction machine and removed most of previous limitations that had commonly been placed on the machine that in some cases could rival the performance of a rotary polisher (Some times exceed, sometimes not)! I say this as a rotary guy who has invested a lot of time attempting to perfect the art of rotary polishing. Either Bryan or I just called it the Kevin Brown Method because it was the first time we (as pretty good rotary guys) had seen such awesome results. The problem of course is that as we went around calling it this, we never took the time to define it.


So who is Kevin Brown? I don't know his life story and I have only been acquainted with him for the last 6 months or so, so I am not qualified to answer that question, but I can tell you who he is to me. The first communication I had with Kevin was an email he sent me, which was very humble, and discussed the possibilities of some polishing causing the paint to expand. I called him on the phone and we spoke for about an hour, mostly swapping stories of paint polishing. I was blown away by his knowledge of paint polishing (we mostly discussed rotary polishing) and felt like a complete novice when it came to the details he was able to explain. Why do abrasives grip the paint? How does the rotational speed of the polisher effect the foam membranes in the pad. How does paint react, chemically, do having solvents, abrasives, and foam spinning over it at great speed....


What I cannot explain, as I simply lack the mastery of English, his how simplest and in-depth Kevin's answers where. I could not 'stump' him and he never said something like “heat is good” but failed to tell me why. I also cannot express, for similar reasons, how humble Kevin is. He is seriously is in it for the teaching his knowledge, nothing more and nothing less.


To give you an example: You will commonly hear, “Use more pressure to push the abrasives into the paint. The PC needs pressure to work because it is weak.” For a lot of people that is a great explanation and serves its purpose. However if you where to ask Kevin why you need pressure when using a Porter Cable the answer would cover the abrasives (by the way you are not pressing them into the paint unless they are attached to surface of the pad, and Kevin would make that distinction), the pad, the compression of the pad, the backing plate, the paint, and everything else, and then the answer would cover what exactly happens to each as pressure is increased. The true answer is that enough pressure has to be used to transfer the movement of the machine, thru the pad, to the face of the pad, to the abrasives, and then the paint. It can get very technical but it is on a different level.


People as what speed to use, 4, 5, or 6. Well depending on the rotational speed of the pad (in accordance to the orbital speed) this depends. Using too high a speed will cause the pattern to become jagged and pull the 'curly qs' tighter leading to an increase in surface marring. Using to little load with too high of a speed will do the same. Increasing pressure, using a softer pad (absorbs more motion), ect may require an increase in speed.


So what is the KBM officially? I don't really know, because limiting it by definition would limit the knowledge that Kevin has to share. As I defined it when Bryan and I spoke would be something along these lines, “The Kevin Brown Method is a better way to polish with a dual action and covers thoughts and techniques FAR more in depth and accurate then anything I have EVER seen posted on the Internet before. Used in conjunction with Meguiar's newest SMAT abrasive liquids, the KBM allows the PC to deliver results similar to a rotary polisher.”


For those who have said that they have been doing this before or have done this for a long time, then why have they not shared their knowledge beforehand? Of course the people saying this have no clue what they are talking about because they haven't read Kevin's paper or spoken to him on the phone, they are simply making an assumption based on very limited knowledge of Kevin's teachings. That said, I am sure that there are others out there that have Kevin's knowledge, I just scratch my head on why they have made no attempt to share such an amazing amount of knowledge with the detailing public but boast about their skills (often saying things so far off base that it is obvious that they are the only ones who think they know what they are talking about). Kevin has the knowledge and the experience, but he is also unselfish and willing to share it with anybody who will listen. I have never heard Kevin brag about anything, that is usually left to those of us who have had the pleasure to speak with such an amazing person.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

So, I guess that means when Wile E Coyote uses a stick of dynamite as a candle, he is abusing both the stick of dynamite and himself?

When one considers that the proper use of the tool, in this case dynamite, is to blow things up while essentially sacrificing itself in the process, then how does one argue that the dynamite is being abused in this instance?

[CieraSL]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

When one considers that the proper use of the tool, in this case dynamite, is to blow things up while essentially sacrificing itself in the process, then how does one argue that the dynamite is being abused in this instance?

Perhaps it is not the dynamite that is being abused, but rather Wile E Coyote himself. For instance in your example with the shop towel being used to polish the paint - the towel itself is not being abused, but the surface it is being used on is. Same thing with the dynamite - it does its job, but it turns poor Wile into a charred mess at the same time without having accomplished a thing.

If using a tool for a purpose other than what it was designed for fails to produce an acceptable result, and in the process damage occurs to either the tool or the work surface, then abuse is found. A typical red shop towel, when used to polish paint, would not do an acceptable job yet it would not damage the tool so there is no abuse of the tool. But since this tool would most likely inflict a wide range of swirls, scratches and other defects to the paint, one could say this misuse does constitute abuse - but not of the tool, only of the surface/material the tool was used on. Otherwise, a towel is perfectly happy and content to be rubbed over a surface.

[john m.]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

We could call it "Dome Glome".

Actually, I could use a dulling agent.
I prefer a matte sheen on tires versus glossy, so I would opt for the Dome Glome Satin versus the Dome Glome High Gloss... with dander control!

Kevin I think you just came up with a new product to sell! Of course I will need half of the profit for helping you find this great idea deep within that dome of yours

Todd, in all that unorganizedness (not sure if thats a word ) that made great sense! I havent had the chance to personally talk to Kevin like you have but did buy the Kevin Brown PC kit from PAC. Now I do not know the method or claim to know it, just hearsay from other people. My process in using this kit will be experimentation to find what works. That is until I can get my hands on his paper

This is more on the subject of Kevin than the abuse of tools, but I know when I see Kevin post I click the thread to see what he said! I could probably sit for hours reading up on his knowledge of detailing! Keep giving us that knowledge Kevin cuz Im soaking up as much of it as I possible can

[Kevin Brown]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

...For those who have said that they have been doing this before or have done this for a long time, then why have they not shared their knowledge beforehand?...

...That said, I am sure that there are others out there that have Kevin's knowledge.
I just scratch my head as to why they have made no attempt to share such an amazing amount of knowledge with the detailing public, yet are willing to boast about their skills....

Todd- thank you for the wonderful compliments. You have no idea how flattered I am.

In addition, I would like to mention how much I appreciate the other members of this fabulous forum! Many have taken it upon themselves to chime in on the KBM, my character, and the various random orbital discussions dispersed across the Net. Overall, these discussions are civil, but at times some can verge on what can only be described as online fistfighting.

One thing that is swell about MOL: It is well known that personal attacks and bashing will not be tolerated on this forum. What this effectively does is promote a discussion of ideas while limiting the tendency to throw out blanket-type, off the cuff statements not related to the subject being discussed. I love that!

As for teaching others, there was a discussion a while back about "What causes the buffer to hop?":

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=38099#post38099

I wrote this somewhere in the thread, and it still stands true today:

I hope that the explanations will be easy to understand for the beginners among us.
Sometimes when we've been doing something for so long, we tend to forget to teach the basics.

It's easy to overlook explanations, while stating only facts.

Stating only the facts makes you a know-it-all.

Explaining things gets you closer to being a teacher.

[Kevin Brown]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

...This is more on the subject of Kevin than the abuse of tools, but I know when I see Kevin post I click the thread to see what he said! I could probably sit for hours reading up on his knowledge of detailing! Keep giving us that knowledge Kevin cuz Im soaking up as much of it as I possible can...

Will DO and thank YOU!

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

It's easy to overlook explanations, while stating only facts.

Stating only the facts makes you a know-it-all.

Explaining things gets you closer to being a teacher.

That's a great philosophy to have, Kevin, thanks for posting it again.

[Kevin Brown]

Re: Dinglehoppers and the Abuse of Tools

Just re-read akimel's original post... it is fantastic!

What a good thread this was. Funny how they explode with energy then fizzle into nothingness.